Vatican's policy on homosexuality

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

*A knowledge of homosexuality isn’t an instruction to get it…

*To admit you are a homosexual - even as a Priest - does not mean you do not acknowledge that it is a Sin (assuming you live by christian moral code).

*Rather than the Church trying to ‘repair’ sexual deviance - it should Shut The Fuck Up and Sit Down. To repiar deviance - what is that? To redeem mankind of its Sinful Nature?

That the Church still views certian sins in greater distaste than others…shows that it has a lot of growing up too do. Indeed, it may have to overcome its own HOMOSEXUALITY before it can make in real move into REALITY.

‘Everyone is guiltly of the good they didn’t do’ - Voltaire

2

What are you trying to say here?

3

That it should not stop homosexuals from being in the prieshood, from engagin in a constractual marriage.

To consenting, mature adults should be allowed to construct their life within the system it lives.

The Vaticans reponse has little or nothing to do with Morality, it has more to do with IMMATURITY.

‘If my actions are indeed sin, I will take the weight, the responsiblity, the consequnces…now, can I go and make my dinner, thank you very much’

  • reponse from a Homosexual who was told by an entire congregation of Christians that he would burn in hell eternally.
4

Firstly, I’m not religious, but can understand the logic of a variety of religions, so that’s the point that I’m coming from.

The church does not want its priests to be sexual at all. You are supposed to give that up.

The church implies that homosexuality is kind of a human invention that goes against god’s plan that involves man, woman, and child. However, it’s still willing to let homosexuals become priests.

Also, homosexual priests have incriminated themselves via the molestation of children. That cost the church a lot both financially and through the loss of public trust.

If there’s any chance that these religions are real, then it’s extremely important to follow what they order. It’s immature not to.

My opinion is that religions are a kind of lie designed to promote ethical standards of living. I believe that the ideas promoted were the result of very bright people observing the behavior of others over a long period of time. Some of these ideas may be invalid, but other ideas might just seem that way because we have forgotten why they are valid.

5

Gay Priests, it is argued, are as comitted to Celibacy as any Heterosexual Priest. the main issue here is ‘acknowledgment’

If the Vatican Acknwoledges that homosexuality exists - as it surely does - then why can it not apply the same understanding it does to heterosexuality?

In short - why fuss over it?

I am certain homosexuals priests were invovled in child molestation and I am sure that many heterosexuals were too.

Rather than sweep the queers under the carpet…establish that they exist…as do all the million blemishes of life…

This is towards CIVILITY. It does not traverse any moral code. Homosexuals can live by Christian moral code assuming they do not practice the ‘scandalised’ sex act.

All desires which are not allowed expression turn inward and become poisionous - perhaps gay Priests being soo held back burst on children!!

It reeks of moral immaturity = regardless of supposed MORAL CODES.

6

Well, a priest should really identify themselves by their sexual preference as they are supposed to be working to eliminate that identification.

Homosexuals identify themselves by their sexual interest and said identity is a sinful one. So, it’s not just a sex life, but rather it’s a sinful sex life that can never be ok. The church likes sinners, but I would assume that they are less trusting of them than people on a less sinful path.

The child aspect of the priests’ behavior is pretty unambiguous. Most of the cases presented were male on male pedophilia. That’s several crimes in one. You have the mistreatment of children, sex with children, corruption of a position of power, and homosexuality. Meanwhile, the heterosexual molestation of children contains much the same stuff, but not quite the same.

“This is towards CIVILITY. It does not traverse any moral code. Homosexuals can live by Christian moral code assuming they do not practice the ‘scandalised’ sex act.

All desires which are not allowed expression turn inward and become poisionous - perhaps gay Priests being soo held back burst on children!!”

These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. What are you saying?

It’s the case that when you are a priest you can’t act on any sexual impulse. If you want to then quit and go work at the supermarket.

7

Two distinctions:

Homosexuals within the Church - should be allowed, homosexuality may be seen as as Sin, but it is not a Crime. Therefore, you cannot be arrested for being a Sinner. or else we would all be in Jail. The issue of Celibacy is, of course, controversial. But, like all things, we have faith that it will be obeyed, especially if you have choosen the priesthood as your life path.

Homosexuality within society - homosexuals should be given the same rights, duties, respectabilties, and responsibilites and dignity as everybody else.

Regardless of sin or not - they should be allowed to function within society - because they already do!!

8

Yes, but a sin is a crime against god. The bigger the crime the less that we should engage in it. I would assume that things are on a scale of importance regarding what can be excused.

You just can’t excuse people that commit the same sin over and over in a carefree fashion.

9

Speaking of moral issues from a Christian view, one cannot express himself gratuitously, as in “this is according to Christian dogma” or “this is not”. Doing so, you become no better at interpretating Christianity than farisees (I’m not sure, is the correct spelling ?) using the Torah to crush people under God’s heel. What I’m trying to say is that, when approaching ethical Christian problems, one must tackle them by questioning himself: "What would have Jesus said about this ? "

And I know, for instance, that Jesus challenged those who are without sin to through the first stone…

10

what exactly is throughing the first stone? and, who is without sin?

Ad: You just can’t excuse people that commit the same sin over and over in a carefree fashion.

And are homosexuals the only people that commit their sins over and over again - in a necessarily - carefree manner?

Coming to terms with sin, coming to grips with sin, is something all people of all time struggle with. Not just homosxuals, pedos and aging drunks…

What amazes me - is that by your tone - you see yourself ABOVE all other sinners, merely because your sin is not as immediately identifiable as a homiosexual or a murderer.

People sin all the time, every time, within time. But, that is rubbish!

What is Sin? Nothing. The entire abstraction is nonesense and comes into contact with reality at no point.

Sin is a crime to God - but only if that God exists - only if the writings of his so-called followers are CORRECT. and we cannot say wether they are correct. we can only have faith and believe.

but should this faith and belief mean - we should demean others? Not at all. We can still live civilly with our problems, with our trouchy awkard supposed sin.

Everyone is a SINNER.

if a homosexual is not Christian - then obviously they will act care-free, because they do not see what they are doing as a sin.

Two discourses here - one of sin - and one of living - i say- from the discourse of sin gay people can live in sin - all sinners live in sin!

from the point of living - all homosexuals should be granted to live as though they were alive. i.e. to partake in a contract with the sole function of organising co-habitation.

11

“And are homosexuals the only people that commit their sins over and over again - in a necessarily - carefree manner?”

No, but you can’t say that you like to steal and then demand to be made a priest. You have to actively be trying to not do that.

The casting the first stone thing has to do with damning and literally trying to kill people for a sin. However, excluding a person from a job or position is not like killing them. They can go and do something else.

12

Just another example: I don’t think that it’s ok to go to church and report that you are a christian drug dealer, and expect acceptance.

See what I mean? Christians do not have to accept bad behavior, but they can’t damn you for it either.

13

This is so obvious.

A homosexual Christian - is doing everything every Christian would be expected too do, ideally. (though we must understand, that sooo many Christians fall short of their own ideal)

A plain homosexual - is accountable to no-one, unless they break civil LAW, therefore, homosexuals couple should be allowed to partake in a civil contract, akin to marriage.

14

A homosexual Christian

There is no such animal.

You can’t say that you are a Thief Christian or an Adulterer Christian. You can have made those mistakes, but they can’t be your identity.

Meanwhile, civil law has nothing to do with this, as Christians believe that there are higher things than man’s law.

You you follow Christian logic it all makes sense.

15

Christian logic? Ha, ha, don’t make me laugh…

Homosexual Christians DO EXIST.

of course, they are a Christian FIRST and FOREMOST. but part of the personality is homosexual. this is simple - definition.

this doesn’t define their entire life - it is merely a fragment of the shape.

Of course, Christians that are homosexual, supress their sexuality to a greater or lesser extent. So do heterosexuals, so do christian chiefs, so do dolphin trainers, so do sheep sheerers!

their sexuality is not the exclusice defintion of the self. but it is a part of it. which must be acknowledged.

16

What makes things really dangerous is not just that Christians believe that there are things higher than the laws of man, but they they alone are privy to those higher things and further believe that is it their sacred duty to enact them.

17

Xanderman, you make a fine point…

I guess there is a herirachy of understanding here.

If we concede that the “laws of man” are the most applicable to this world. Then, homosexuality and homosexuals, should recieve that same “rights and responsibilities” as any other memeber of society.

As for the Laws of God - I have no grand delusions - that God has any or if It did that I would necessarily understand them. I would know even less how to understand Gods LAWS if the only authority on them was a HUMAN BEING.

Let me put it this way - I reject entirely the LAWS OF THE CHRISTIAN GOD. and the Christian church should learn that obeying the LAWS OF MAN is not necasserily a problem for it. it is but merely a step on the ladder.

through the laws of man - people can ‘still come through’ to the supposed laws of god.

the laws of man - is a kind of concession - that so far the suposed LAWS OF GOD - haven’t done that much…without the lower rung Laws of Man…the laws of God…would be laughable.

18

“Christian logic? Ha, ha, don’t make me laugh…”

By that I mean the logic of the system of thinking.

“Homosexual Christians DO EXIST.”

You can’t be a full-time Christian and a full Homosexual.

“this doesn’t define their entire life - it is merely a fragment of the shape.”

It does in that it’s a fairly big sin and one must work harm to not do it.

Frankly, it’s my opinion that homosexuals should stick to secular life. It says something about their personality that they want to be involved in religion. It an I want my cake and to eat it too mentality, and that speaks mouthfuls.

19

xanderman

As you know, I’m the last to defend religion, but I can see their point on a variety of issues if I accept their logic. If they are right, then they are right. If they aren’t they they are a bit insane and so are the people that want to join up with them.

20

Ad: You can’t be a full-time Christian and a full Homosexual.

No, but you can be a Christian who is homosexual.

Ad: Frankly, it’s my opinion that homosexuals should stick to secular life. It says something about their personality that they want to be involved in religion. It an I want my cake and to eat it too mentality, and that speaks mouthfuls.

Your ignorance would make you a prime candidate to become Christian. It is you who actually chooses to focus on HOMOSEXUALITY, not necessarily, the homosexual. (point: a christian is homosexual, even if they are not practising, even if they have told NOONE in the clergy. they can still be gay, have gay desires. sinful desires, like the entire human race, upon which they must repent and try to come to terms with.)

ad: ‘it says something about their personality that they want to be invovled in religion’

Yes, it says that they are human, searching for FUCKING answers. NOT RELIGION WOMAN! - BUT, SPIRITUALITY, BUT, FAITH! NOT DOGMA!

homosexuality does not stop a HUMAN BEING discoverying and investigating their own SPIRITUALITY which may lead to Christ or Buddha or several other ‘things’.